S. Periyakaruppan vs Revenue Divisional Officer and The Tahsildar

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is carrying on business of money lending in the name and style of Sree Ega Valli Finance at Madurai. A

complaint was given against the petitioner on the Grievance Redressal Day to the first respondent/R.D.O., Madurai, by M/s. S. Abbas Ali and A.

Jayasudha.

On the basis of the said complaint notice was sent to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer vide notice

dated 02.08.2005. It is stated that the petitioner had appeared on the said date before the first respondent/R.D.O. The petitioner was not aware of

the nature of complaint and no enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. However, by the impugned order dated 19.09.2005, the

first respondent/R.D.O. cancelled the license given to the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Act, 1943, in which the

power to cancel or suspend license has been given to the specified authority u/s 4(1). u/s 4(1) the power of granting license vest only with the

Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which shop or place or business is situated. But u/s 22 the State Government has

power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. By virtue of the said power, the State of Tamil Nadu had framed Tamil Nadu

Pawnbrokers Rule, 1943. Under Rule 3 the power to grant pawnbrokers licence has been given to the Tahsildar of the Taluk.

In case of any appeal under Rule 11-B the appellate authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the learned Counsel states that when

the Tahsildar has given a licence for the petitioner to carry on the business, it is not open to the appellate authority to cancel the same. Secondly he

submitted that the R.D.O. before revocation of licence except giving the enquiry notice had not complied with principles of natural justice.

The writ petition was admitted on 09.11.2005. On the same day an interim-stay was also granted and it has not been vacated.

In any event, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is well founded. When the R.D.O. is the appellate authority in terms

of Rule, he ought not to have passed the order cancelling the licence. Secondly, as contented, the petitioner was not put on notice regarding the

nature of complaint made without which a licence cannot be cancelled.

In the light of the same, the writ petition stands allowed. However, it is open to the respondents, if they are so advised to initiate appropriate

action in accordance with the Act and the Rules. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.